We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History

from the a-true-renaissance dept

As we recently noted in our The Sky Is Rising study, all of the evidence shows that we're living in a time of true abundance in terms of the content world. All of the data shows this. It's really incontrovertible. And yet, we keep hearing from certain folks -- often legacy entertainment industry interests -- that somehow the content creation world is at risk. That's pretty difficult to square with reality. In fact, I think it could be argued that if the industry gets its way with some of its legal proposals that would put this amazing age of creativity at much greater risk than anything the industry is complaining about.

It seems that plenty of others are recognizing this as well. Tom sent over a great blog post by Terry Border of Bent Objects, explaining why this is the most creative time in history... and why we shouldn't take that for granted. And, of course, a big reason for such an explosion of creativity is because of the internet, and the ability to not just create, promote and distribute works, but the ability to communicate.

Think about the art of writing for a minute. Think about creative, or biographical, or whatever kind of writing. Before blogging, how many people wrote any more than it took to fill the space of postcard? If it wasn't their profession, I'd say very few. Now, it seems like everyone has had a blog at one time or another. And now "micro-blogging" is in style thanks to Twitter. Not as many words you say? Right, but it's a different skill that people are learning. Very concise wording. Do people want to post boring tweets? Of course not. People spend quite a few minutes of their day trying to write interesting, humorous, or informative Tweets and Facebook updates. Small bits of creativity for sure, but add them up on a weekly basis, and it's quite a bit.

I think of all the craftspersons who have learned from each other on-line. Popular knitting blogs for instance have taken that old past-time of grandma's and made it mainstream. Before Etsy and the like, where would a person sell the scarves and hats that they made besides the occasional craft fair? I mean, a family only needs so many scarves, and then the knitting needles were put away. Communities on the web not only serve as a place to share work and ideas, but that also serve as shops to sell your product worldwide, creating a reason to make more, and to try new, crazy ideas. Kind of incredible.

That's just a small clip from his longer post, which goes into much more detail. It's worth a read, and definitely pay attention to his conclusion:

My contention is that these days we live in right now will be looked back on with longing, especially with various governments trying to push through laws to control the internet. If that happens, these will be the good old days, so don't take them for granted. Look around and enjoy. I think this is an incredible time to make things, and I hope it stays around for a while.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And this is part of the reason why so many people are so worried about things like SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and TPP. We don't want this amazing era to go away. We just want it to get better and better.

Neither ACTA, TPP, SOPA, nor PIPA will do anything to make "this amazing era...go away". The same plaintive wails were heard when the DMCA was on the legislative table, and yet even though it was passed the internet persevered. In fact, some have stated that the DMCA, and particularly Section 512, has been an important factor in fostering growth by the safe harbors provided to service providers. In the brick and mortar world there are no such safe harbors.

Re:

Re:

Except the DMCA has shown to everyone paying attention how it is used and that is to harm other business, to harm competition and not to defend against copyright infringement.

The DMCA has cooled the US internet advance to the point where people are moving out and doing things in others countries which means money in other countries, that impact you don't mention why?

You also don't mention that SOPA, PIPA, TPP and ACTA are all designed to get rid of safe harbors and increase liability to every third party meaning increasing the legal costs and burden to everyone, excluding all the little guys.

Re:

That's a lie and you know it. Outside the Internet the laws are intentionally designed to stifle competition through government established broadcasting and cabelco monopolies and through laws that make it too legally risky and expensive for restaurants and other venues to host independent performers and too legally risky and expensive for bakeries to allow children to draw custom drawings on their birthday cakes. The same corporations that are pushing for these laws are the ones responsible for shutting down Veoh for no good reason whatsoever. The intent is to stifle competition which is what they have managed to do outside the Internet. It's the same entities that lobbied hard for 95+ year copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions. They have no moral standards whatsoever beyond their own pocket books and are purely selfish, just like you. They have every intent on passing laws, like SOPA, that stifle competition and they have every intent on abusing those laws. Now stop telling lies because no one believes you anymore.

Re:

Ahh, mistaking a large quantity for a lack of quality, and moreover, confusing "actual creativity" for something other than remix and repetition, with the author's personality and ideals tempering the mix.

Just because the pile of truly uninspired crap is larger than ever, doesn't mean there aren't enough gems to justify your digging.

Re: Re:

Everything is abused by some, though much of the perceived abuse associated with takedowns does not withstand scrutiny upon closely examining the facts. You make it sound as if the are the rule, and not the exception, which is certainly not the case.

If you really want to talk about abuse, how about those who feel they are completely above the law and see nothing wrong in misappropriating the work product of others for their own personal benefit? Why are they not being held accountable by others who are playing by the rules? After all, if they were not doing so you would not see anywhere near the concern expressed by content producers.

Re:

I think you are right, how many times we need to watch Hawaii 5-0 remakes, or The Little Red Ridding with werewolfs, Vampires, Lord of The Rings derivatives?

The real culture is beneath all of that varnish of copying happening in forums, with people taking in all that information and coming up with new ideas.

Which can't happen inside a monopolistic culture, only in an open culture can true ideas come forth without fear of being banished by the law.

See Nosferatu that had all copies in Europe destroyed by overzealous laws and was saved to posterity by a more open place the US at the time, see how Luddites destroyed and threatened the industrialization of textiles giving up that market to the US that didn't respect any patents at all at the time and the examples of openness triumphing over monopolies is all over the history books.

Re: Re: Re:

Of course they do, they implement liability to third parties without bounds, they give power to hearsay and credit to speculation on the part of content owners and discretion to decide what to do and punish those that they don't think they done enough.

Re: Re: Re:

"though much of the perceived abuse associated with takedowns does not withstand scrutiny upon closely examining the facts."

You mean like how Dajaz1 was taken down for a year for no reason before being returned?

Notice, like always, you have done nothing to closely examine any facts. Techdirt has spent many article closely examining the facts and time and time again, like this post demonstrates, IP extremists have done absolutely nothing to closely examine any facts and show that they have a point or even an argument. You just make faith based proclamations that go against all evidence and expect others to believe you and then you wonder why no one believes you and you can't get bills like SOPA passed.

Re: Re: Re:

"Sorry, but in my book their FUD does not cut it. It is dishonest rhetoric."

Only because your book is dishonest rhetoric, just like 95+ year copy protection lengths. SOPA was written by the same dishonest people who demanded and got 95+ copy protection lengths and you know it because you are dishonest too.

Re: Re: Re:

Oh really, care to show an example then if that is true then you wouldn't have a problem finding that would you?
And you seem to think that granting a monopoly to any idiot for life + 95 years is a good idea care to explain when in history a granted monopoly with powerful exclusionary powers was good?

When?

Care to explain why a granted monopoly designed to facilitate the transfer of knowledge to the public domain so everyone could use that for free in their own pursuit of happiness is being used to do the exact opposite?

Re:

What words would you use to describe this "actual creativity"?

In your attempt to answer this question, please create your answer such that it mets your definition of actually creative.

Keep in mind that the English language has been in existence for over four hundred years, therefore you do not want to simply repeat anything that has already been done - otherwise it is repetition and not actually creative.

Re: Re: Re:

"how about those who feel they are completely above the law and see nothing wrong in misappropriating the work product of others for their own personal benefit?"

and what makes you the ultimate authority of morality that you may impose your (lack of) moral standards on others? If you want to follow IP principles by yourself because you think it's the right thing to do then go ahead, but don't impose your arbitrary moral standards on me through bad laws. Otherwise I could just as easily impose my arbitrary moral standards on you and demand that you pay me a million dollars because it's the right thing to do.

and, the fact of the matter is that you have no moral standards beyond making money. There is nothing wrong with infringement, the purpose of IP is not to prevent infringement because it's morally wrong, it's not morally wrong, it's purpose should be to promote the sciences and useful arts and to serve a public benefit. No one is entitled to a government established monopoly.

Re: Re:

Boy, are you an easy mark for FUD.

Some of the copyright laws, long ago incorporated into law and the subject of significant interpretive rulings by the judiciary, are there for perfectly valid reasons. Most who view them as too risky likely view a whole host of other laws too risky as well.

As for copyright extensions, I wonder how many realize that the impetus for them did not arise within the US. They arose as the result of demands made by other countries that were incorporated into treaties dating back to the late 1800's. The US did not abandon the Copyright Act of 1909 so that it could latch on to what "them foreigners" were doing, but to ensure that US rights holders were not subject to disparate treatment in those other countries.

You can repeat all the rhetoric you have heard as of late, but in doing so you fall prey to misinformation that is being propounded by a few in a clear attempt to rally support for their cause. I will readily admit that some supporters of SOPA and PIPA are prone to overstatement when it comes "number crunching", but this is a far cry from the course being followed by so many of the instituional, acdemic and civil society opponents, to name but a few.

I suggest you try opening your mind to the possibility that what you have been told is the case by opponents is not the God's honest truth.

Re: Re: Re:

"Some of the copyright laws, long ago incorporated into law and the subject of significant interpretive rulings by the judiciary, are there for perfectly valid reasons."

To stifle competition. Yes, for valid, purely self serving, reasons.

"Most who view them as too risky likely view a whole host of other laws too risky as well."

You mean like how Veoh had to shut down fighting bogus infringement suits.

"They arose as the result of demands made by other countries that were incorporated into treaties dating back to the late 1800's."

They arose as a result of industry interests demanding that other countries demand them. The old, get them into international agreements and then claim that we aren't following our international agreement trick that industry likes to pull.

"You can repeat all the rhetoric you have heard as of late, but in doing so you fall prey to misinformation that is being propounded by a few in a clear attempt to rally support for their cause."

None of it is misinformation, our laws are entirely one sided just like 95+ year copy protection lengths are entirely one sided. It's not misinformation, it's fact.

"I suggest you try opening your mind to the possibility that what you have been told is the case by opponents is not the God's honest truth."

You have yet to say anything substantial whatsoever. Nothing. You are a liar and you know it, and it's not working.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Who is implementing third party liability? It isn't by chance courts applying principles of common law reaching back several hundred years. What a terrible injustice, holding in certain instances third parties liable for their own actions.

Re: Re:

Ahh, Nina, there you go again. Trying to redifine the world in your own image, because you cannot agree with it.

Derivative in general terms (all are movies about monsters) does mean that there is not large and specific creativity (thing Dracula versus, I dunno, Alien). No matter what, there will always be broad situations that link things together, such as "they are all monster movies" or "they are all action movies" or "they are all movies made by a woman who doesn't understand licensing". But inside those very general guidelines, there is plenty of creativity.

What I find to be truly different in the last 15 years or so is that what passes as "new" these days is often nothing more than the old repackaged. Hollywood does it (Charlies Angels to Mr Poppers Penguins, and all steps in the middle), and pretty much everyone else does.

Further, it gets worse when you look at Useless shit like this. It is no longer acceptable just to copy a style, now it's considered art to copy someone else's completed work.

Untalented sample arists (Hi marcus) pollute the world with more music made by copying the works of others.

The volume of "stuff" is up, but it seems that most of it is repeating, and worse, the "culture" seems to think that taking someone else's finished product is an okay place to start.

It's a derivative, self-defeating way to do anything. It means that we are not in the most creative time, for most people don't appear to have the desire to start with nothing and working up... they want to be handed a finished product that they can make a slight change to, and call their own.

We aren't in the most creative time. We are in the purge stage that comes after a binge, nothing more.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Try studying the history associated with the Copyright Act of 1976 and subsequent amendments, and then come back when you have completed your studies. I believe you will discover that much of what you believe is based upon bad gouge you have been spoon fed by others.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

"and worse, the "culture" seems to think that taking someone else's finished product is an okay place to start."

and who are you to dictate morality to others? What makes your arbitrary moral standards so superior to others? Sorry, I don't care for your arbitrary moral standards, go preach to a wall or something.

"for most people don't appear to have the desire to start with nothing and working up"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

To answer your question and demand for "facts", try engaging in self-help and read the legislation. When you are done, come back and I will be more than glad to answer any questions you may have and give serious consideration to your comments and concerns.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

and just because you can find some outlier authors that may have wanted them does not mean that industry didn't also want them. You can find outlier authors today that want them, and industry will hail them as examples of what authors in general want.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, the DMCA cannot be imposed upon sites located in a foreign country. Sure, Megaupload tried to make a big deal that it was voluntarily following the DMCA. Too bad it never mentioned that it had no legal obligation to do so and US courts were powerless if it chose to tell those in the US to go fly a kite.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I find this an insult to the Techdirt community. Techidrt, and Mike, has spent a lot of time discussing the bill and some on Techdirt have read it only to have IP extremists continually proclaim, with no evidence or substantiation or reason whatsoever, that we are simply wrong. You have yet to say anything substantial, all you do is proclaim whatever you want.

Pray tell, what does SOPA do that's so different from what the DMCA already does?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.[8]"

Re: Re: Re:

"Derivative in general terms (all are movies about monsters) does mean that there is not large and specific creativity (thing Dracula versus, I dunno, Alien). "

Right, Dracula was created through compressing hundreds of years of folk lore and Alien is HR Gieger paintings and classic horror tropes. Both well made classics that built on a long storied tradition. Nothing is made in a bottle and all great works borrow heavily from multiple influences. Except now no one can borrow from Alien without Fox Corp's permission until the end of time. No one can get to close to Dracula without Warner Brothers(iirc) permission. Does this make better art or more money for a few people and shitty hit movies? Van Helsing and AvP really want to know.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mike already discussed SOPA in detail, as in the above link. We don't need some anonymous troll, with no known reputation for anything (for all I know, you can be a convicted felon), telling us what to believe with unsubstantiated claims. Your unsubstantiated claims ring hollow. Mike, a known source with a good reputation, has discussed SOPA in detail and has substantiated his claims. To us you're just another anonymous nobody making empty claims. Not that there is anything wrong with speaking anonymously, I do it, but when all you can come up with are empty claims from an anonymous coward with no substantiation then don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Or else at least substantiate your claims like Mike has his.

Re:

Individually, perhaps not. But they are all part of a larger trend by one small industry (the entertainment industry) to increasingly restrict innovation and technologies that disrupt its longstanding business model. They do so by increasing compliance costs and liability.

And the impact will, in fact, hit the innovators (and their investors) who make this creative period possible.

So, you're wrong. There's more than enough evidence to show that putting such an undue burden on the true innovators will stifle future growth rates.

The same plaintive wails were heard when the DMCA was on the legislative table, and yet even though it was passed the internet persevered.

Let's be clear here, because this particular piece of bullshit has become a talking point of Hollywood, and I'm amazed that someone who prides himself on being accurate would repeat such obvious bullshit.

(1) There were serious complaints about the DMCA as it was originally put forth. Those complaints *worked* in that the original bill *was* trimmed back significantly. To pretend otherwise is hogwash and shows that you are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

(2) In part, in response to those complaints, Section 512 safe harbors were added. That was to appease those who complained -- and now many do agree that *those safe harbors* were important. Not the rest of the bill, which is almost certainly a complete disaster.

So, it's intellectually dishonest (and ridiculously slimy) to suggest that those of us who praise the safe harbors somehow cried wolf over the entire DMCA. The rest of the DMCA has *empirically* caused tremendous harm to innovation already. What is sickening and depressing is how much better off the world would be if that weren't in place. And you want to make it even worse. Shameful.

We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History

There are more engineers, scientists, producers, artists living today, that all of history combined.

With all that effort what has been achieved in recent years that is not simply making what you allready know a little bigger, or faster or better.

Where are the big innovations ? the great new inventions ?

It takes a huge amount of creativity to invent television, or the digital computer, or radio, or the telegraph.

It takes very little creativity to take those existing creations and refine them a bit.

We are still using the same compters that were designed in the 40's and 50's, except we have refined the basic design a bit and used different components.

No great creativity there, we (mankind) as still using the same basic creations that we have allways used.

We are living in an age of a significant lack of creativity, especially considering the huge amound of people capable of that type of creativity....

Just because Masnick says something does not mean it is true or accurate, it is after all only his opinion.

"The Masnick" does seem to be at all aware of HISTORY, and looks at the world as a typical spoilt American, still living under the delusion that America is the mighty leader of the world.

At least he is able to convince some other equally delusional Americans that the word of "the masnick" is equivalent to the word of some demi-god. That ofcourse is a great deal easier than actually thinking for yourself, or looking at the real world !!!! :)

Re: Re: Re:

I feel dumber by having to explain this, but all art is originally derived from the real world. That is, either the world as the artist sees it, or the world as the artist would like it to be. Physical art is based on the physical world. Written art is based on the human condition.

Like I said, ALL art is remix and repetition, with the artist's personality and ideals to temper the mix.

Re: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History

Re: What I find to be truly different in the last 15 years or so is that what passes as "new" these days is often nothing more than the old repackaged. Hollywood does it ...

And interestingly, Hollywood is at the forefront of those calling for more draconian copyright restrictions. They claim that copyright will encourage innovation, yet they are the ones churning out sequels and remakes and “reimaginings” of the same old ideas. Spotted that pattern yet?

Re: We are still using the same compters that were designed in the 40's and 50's, except we have refined the basic design a bit and used different components.

Yeah, and those “compters” use the same mathematical principles that were worked out thousands of years earlier and implemented in age-old devices like abacuses, counting with figures, marks on paper, “except we have refined the basic design a bit and used different components”. What’s so innovative about that, hmm?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I thought that was your way dude!
Worshiping a monopoly and trying to exclude everybody from culture just so you can hold on to what you misappropriated and that is the public space, shared by everyone and essential to the survival of the human race.

Re: Re: We are still using the same compters that were designed in the 40's and 50's, except we have refined the basic design a bit and used different components.

That is software innovations only, not hardware innovations (of which there are also several), only the most important ones, and the list is still incomplete (there are more being considered listed in the appendix).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Just because you ignore the argument and label comments that you disagree with as stupid does not make any of that true. You are deluded and no one believes you, you don't even believe your own lies. But if you repeat them long enough maybe someone else might, right? How is that working out for you?

Re: Re: Re:

Veoh.

and the burden should never be on IP critics to justify IP abolition, IP does not exist by default and is an artificial construct like any other law. Just like any other law, it is the law that needs to be justified. The burden is always on IP extremists to justify an IP law and one problem with the DMCA and (all) IP laws is that they have yet to be justified.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

The internet is a communications platform. That is the source of the fear in the content industry. It's not a broadcast medium.

I understand that this is a HUGE problem for trolls. You no longer get to just state your opinions or lies and then expect people to accept your words as gospel. On the internet, people get to RESPOND.

Trolls spew their rhetoric and then come the facts. How do they defend their rhetoric? Facts to support them? Rarely ,if ever. Instead more opinion and FUD, in hopes that will scare the audience away from the facts presented.

We are trying to do you a favor content industry, by showing you that we do have voices. Keep ignoring us or marginalizing us and you will keep wondering what is going on and you will end up marginalized on the interwebs.

Adding to these early reports of successful linkage, there are also reports that telemedicine has helped to save lives in crowded pilgrimage centres and military outposts connected with mobile telemedicine units. For example, the Amrita Telemedicine Programme reports that on 13 January 2003, the programme's first remote telesurgery procedure was performed [15]. The Amrita Emergency Care Unit at Pampa was able to save the life of a pilgrim by a telesurgical procedure using the local telemedicine facility. The cardiothoracic surgeon guided the procedure remotely, and the pediatric cardiologist at Pampa performed the procedure. Mobile telemedicine units were also rushed to the coasts and islands of India after the 2004 tsunami to provide medical consultation and relief to the affected people

When openness and easy access are granted business flourish everywhere, Africans just learned that.
Quote:

Growth in the number of Internet users in South Africa was relatively stagnant from 2002 to 2007, when it never rose above 7%. However, this rate almost doubled in 2008, and continued accelerating in 2009.

World Wide Worx found that the landing of a new undersea cable on the South African coast was only one of a range of factors behind the growth. Of greater significance was the granting of Electronic Communications Network Service licenses to more than 400 organisations. This meant that service providers that were previously required to buy their network access from one of the major providers, could now build their own networks or choose where they wanted to buy their access.

The result was that a market previously characterised by a limited range of providers and services suddenly exploded as small providers were able to repackage the services provided by the large telecommunications corporations in any way they wished. The large providers, in turn, began to offer far more competitive packages to both customers and resellers.

People all around the world a executing things cheaper, faster than the US can and one big reason is that the people in America can't trust their government anymore that is leading to friction and inertia and aggressive pursuit of expansion to granted monopoly powers is not the way to change that, it is harming America tremendously since people don't expect to work, everybody seems to think that they can build a portfolio and live their lifes out of royalties, that is not going to happen, what is worse stupid people in that pursuit are blocking others from trying new things, are making very difficult to do business in America which is a shame.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And that is relevant because...?

It doesn't mater where it can from, it is an immoral, harmful thing.

Immoral because only an idiot would believe that extending a granted monopoly and making more powerful could possibly be a good thing and harmful because I have yet to see any good granted monopoly care to cite one in the history of humanity that it was good for people and not just the one guy holding that monopoly?

a nd some of the problems our existing copy protection laws cause include making it too legally risky and expensive for restaurants and other venues to host independent performers.

and for bakeries to enable children to draw their own custom pictures on birthday cakes.

Yet the industry complained about the VCR and just about every technological innovation, comparing it to the Boston Strangler on film production. That all turned out to be false. They are so used to having their way that they expect the FCC to investigate every petty complaint even if their complaint has no legal basis whatsoever.

but keep ignoring the problems and pretending that they don't exist. If you keep plugging your ears long enough and telling lies, maybe one day someone, besides a paid politician, might believe you.

Re: Re: Re:

If you really want to talk about abuse, how about those who feel they are completely above the law and see nothing wrong in misappropriating the work product of others for their own personal benefit?

You do realize, do you not, that this is exactly how Hollywood and the motion picture association were built in the first place, yes? If that's the argument you want to base the moral part of the debate/discussion on, you've already lost before you even started.

Why are they not being held accountable by others who are playing by the rules?

Which rules are those? The rules Hollywood (and to a lesser extent much of the other content industries) ignored to make themselves rich and powerful, but now want to use to stifle competition?

The rules that let a company like UMG "steal" and claim ownership of someone else's rights like, say, After the Smoke.

The rules that let a company like UMG sue competitors into bankruptcy with appeal after appeal despite being told clearly and repeatedly those competitors are legal, then using that lack of competition to exert tremendous pressure on content creators to relinquish most of their right for any significant opportunity to succeed at their craft?

Or maybe it's the rules that have been custom tailored to benefit a small number of large corporations (and the small selection of mostly hand picked creators they've made insanely wealthy to hold out as carrots)to shift all the advantages, like scope and duration, to near infinite levels, while eliminating/reducing all the checks and balances that made copyright fair?

After all, if they were not doing so you would not see anywhere near the concern expressed by content producers.

Which content producers? They growing list of people who have publicly stated that regardless of how much money they may or may not have been deprived of due to piracy, it still pails compared to the money they've been deprived of due to fancy corporate accounting?

Re: Re: Re: We are still using the same compters that were designed in the 40's and 50's, except we have refined the basic design a bit and used different components.

From your link:

One source that was not helpful for this analysis were software patents. The reason? Software patents are actually harmful, not helpful, to software innovation, as confirmed by a myriad of data. Those unfamiliar with software patents may find that shocking.

There are several basic problems with software patents, compared to actual innovation:

almost all truly important innovations in software were never covered by patents, so using patents as a primary source would omit almost all of the most important software innovations;
as software patentability has increased, the number of software innovations has decreased; and
software patents are often granted to cover ideas that are obvious to practitioners of the art or have prior art (even though these aren’t supposed to be patented).

Re: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History

Quote:

One source that was not helpful for this analysis were software patents. The reason? Software patents are actually harmful, not helpful, to software innovation, as confirmed by a myriad of data. Those unfamiliar with software patents may find that shocking.

There are several basic problems with software patents, compared to actual innovation:

almost all truly important innovations in software were never covered by patents, so using patents as a primary source would omit almost all of the most important software innovations;
as software patentability has increased, the number of software innovations has decreased; and
software patents are often granted to cover ideas that are obvious to practitioners of the art or have prior art (even though these aren’t supposed to be patented).

Re: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History

The computer architecture began with the abacus and was painfully slowly refined via mechanical means. There were mechanical calculators that worked off of gears and a crank long before the invention of the electronic computer. With electricity (a scientific advancement that took over a hundred years to be applied to computing), we were able to get sufficient speed to make universal computation work.

Over the course of roughly three decades, multiple independent researchers all came up with Turing-complete computational models. In fact, Turing-complete computation was discovered by three independent groups through three different approaches, leading to the Church-Turing thesis. The thesis is strong because of the way that every approach eventually ends in the same place.

Again, the same thing was invented three separate ways within a decade. It was not some divine spark of genius that prompted this, but the gradual progress of human innovation. We make things a little better until we reach a point where something new comes from it.

Other examples:
Two people came up with the principles underlying calculus independent from each other and within only a short span of years.
Einstein was not the first to discover E=mc^2, nor is that the entire formula. Yet his work on that formula represented a great increase in the understanding of physics.
The philosophers of ancient Greece all built upon the theories of their predecessor(s) and/or teachers, with each philosopher refining the ideas.
Germany was working on their own version of the A bomb during WWII.

Anything more than a cursory study of the history of any invention shows a civilization readied for that invention. Societies, as a whole, generate invention. An inventor is simply the person in the crow's nest who gets to see the shore first. They'd never get there without the entire ship and crew bearing them forth across the ocean.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Try studying the history of the content industry, particularly Hollywood. Much of your argument is based not on hard data, but is largely an emotional plea to a moral argument (and the same one you've used to gain many of the legal protections you currently enjoy) which is wholly disingenuous given violating that moral argument is how you're industry all got rich and powerful in the first place.

Building businesses/industry based on violating the IP of others, then bribing the government (and having the audacity of the MPAA, and Chris Dodd himself, all but admit it) to insure you are the only ones who can do so, is not going to convince me to once again support your industry.

Re: Re: Re:

and if you want original works then create it yourself. Where are your original works? Oh, that's right, you're a lawyer.

I don't care if most of today's works are derivative. That's no different than how things used to be and even if it's different I still don't care. You don't like it you have some options. Create your own works or, if you don't want others making derivatives of works you create, then don't create and release works. I don't care either way. but don't impose your arbitrary restrictions on others because when you do then I do care.

Re: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History

It takes very little creativity to take those existing creations and refine them a bit.

We are still using the same compters [sic] that were designed in the 40's and 50's, except we have refined the basic design a bit and used different components.

No great creativity there, we (mankind) as still using the same basic creations that we have allways [sic] used.

Oh, really? It takes much more creativity to add new features and increased computational power to existing designs without sacrificing too much reverse compatibility then it does to create a completely new design from scratch, not even taking into account all the development work needed to create the new processes and equipment used in the manufacturing of more complex and powerful designs.

If computers were the same as they were in the 40s and 50s and had no real creative additions to them, to get the same computing power you have in the cell phone in your pocket you would need a computer so big it would probably take a medium smallish state to fit it in, and the power output of
that state to run it.

Plus, factual failure. The computers in the 40s and 50s were binary computers, whereas the desktop computers we use today are x86 based and were developed in the 70s. Also, the most used microprocessors today are ARM based (these are used in cell phones, tablets, and many embedded systems), which were developed in the late 80s.

Re: Re: Re:

Try a little thought experiment. I know thought is a stretch for you, but...

What would the world look like if we just canceled IP with the exception of trademark in very narrow instances (same type of business in the same market, not like the IOC claiming jurisdiction over 'Olympic Pizza)? No more patents, no more copyright.

Would Big Content roll over and die, or would they actually start to work for a living, instead of riding on the backs of creators?

Would the economy suddenly take off when companies no longer had to spend money on lawyers and protection patent portfolios and could put that money into new products and research?

Would independent artists and musicians suddenly find a level playing field?

Would concentrating on developing new and provocative services instead of finding a way around 'one click' be better for GPD?

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

there you go again. Trying to redifine the world in your own image, because you cannot agree with it.

no u

the "culture" seems to think that taking someone else's finished product is an okay place to start.

hey if you draw flowers you are taking nature's product as a place to start, ditto for mountains/trees/water/animals/anything else in nature, don't draw from nature "It's a derivative, self-defeating way to do anything." you said so yourself

they want to be handed a finished product that they can make a slight change to, and call their own.

yup so i don't want to see you drawing anything from nature, or this planet, or galaxy, those are all finished products, when you make variations on them you are taking that product and changing it alittle, be original, dumbass, only draw stuff from other dimensions

oh wait, you can't, cause *gasp* you don't even know what that looks like you actually need a finished product to learn from, imagine that!

Re: Re: Re:

Re: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History

It takes very little creativity to take those existing creations and refine them a bit.

bzzzt! wrong

it actually takes MORE creativity than the initial surge to refine an existing creation

it's like the pilot episode of a show, all you need is some details, a couple of ideas and you're set, it takes MUCH more effort and thought to actually continue it as a series, especially over a long period of time

i just find it both curious and silly that there are so many people willing to support a system (copyright/IP) that require degrading and discrediting an important stable of progress (remixing&refinement) to support their cause, it shows just how much they take the world for granted aswell as their bloated sense of entitlement

Re: Re:

Most Creative Time in History

True, and it has a HUGE downside.
Suddenly, for the first time in history, very, very large numbers of people can be "artists"; contributing nothing of any great value to society (true, some provide a "thrill", which to some people is "all that matters" (as they eat food they have not earned, and rest in comfortable surroundings provided by other people)).
Art (including music, etc.) is important and satisfying, but it is a SIDE ISSUE for life! The important things are in the satisfaction of the basic needs, not listening to a song, or looking at a picture!

Re:

Thing is, the oppressive copyright regime is failing to prevent copying. If it wasn't, there would be no push for greater enforcement procedures. Even more telling, it is those areas where the regime is bypassed (legal or illegally) that have most contributed to the innovations.

Piracy and draconian legislation are both going on. Each side claims that the other side is detrimental to innovation. On such a cursory level of examination, all that is evidenced is that correlation really doesn't imply causation.

Digging deeper and looking at where the most innovation comes from, we see that the copyright regime is merely correlated with innovation, where the internet with its numerous bypasses to copyright is the cause of that innovation. Really, every time an innovation in copyright law is so easily bypassed by an innovation in infringement practice is evidence that the infringers are the better innovators.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"To answer your question and demand for "facts", try engaging in self-help and read the legislation. When you are done, come back and I will be more than glad to answer any questions you may have and give serious consideration to your comments and concerns."

Sorry - you are the one who made the claim:
--- "No, they do not displace DMCA safe harbors" ---
I simply asked that you substantiate same.

Your response is both dismissive and insulting.
I fart in your general direction.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"hey if you draw flowers you are taking nature's product as a place to start, ditto for mountains/trees/water/animals/anything else in nature, don't draw from nature "It's a derivative, self-defeating way to do anything." you said so yourself"

See, this is why it is so hard to explain stuff to people here.

If you look at something, and then draw your own IMPRESSION of it, you are good to go. It's original. It might not be the first every flower picture, whatever.

Compare that to say using a coloring book picture of a flower, and covering it over in red. We might consider that to be acceptable for a 2 year old in daycare, but we wouldn't be impressive for an adult to do it. It would be incredibly derivative, and likely not to be considered "art" by many people.

Remix culture, specifically taking other people's songs or videos and snipping them together in a different way isn't really different from the collages you might have done in 3rd grade. The technology today is better, but really, there isn't much in it. It certainly is on the lower end of the scale of creativity, because most of the work was already done.

It's the difference between baking bread from scratch, and buying a loaf at the local bodega. Spreading jam on a couple of slices of either would make a sandwich, but only one would really be "your own".

Understanding the difference is to understand why this isn't the most creative time... just the biggest volume of crap time.

Re: Most Creative Time in History

both are equally important, in different ways, for different reasons and in different situations

the people you describe are one side of a spectrum that takes things for granted, i've seen some of the opposite side who have this hollow lack of appreciation for beauty, emotion, imagination or art and it is an equally sad sight

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Even in this one comment, you seem to stumble back and forth over the supposed line between creative and not creative. Do you really think the definitions of art and originality - hotly debated for ages - can be summed up with a sandwich metaphor?

You say understanding the difference is key - I say to you: understanding that the difference is not as clear as you think is the real key.

Re:

1. We are living in the most creative time ever
2. It's one of the "most repressive" copyright regimes ever.

Conclusion: the idea that copyright is hampering creativity has now been THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED. I mean there is literally no bunk left. All the bunk has been FUS RO DAHed off the Throat of the World.

That's just simplistic. Do you know how many other changes - how many other kinds of growth - have taken place alongside the increases in both creativity and copyright? There are thousands of factors, and you're going to randomly draw a line between two of them? Correlation in a system this complex is pretty meaningless all by itself.

To "THOROUGHLY DEBUNK" the fact that copyright hampers creativity, you'd need to at least make the effort to normalize some of those other factors and show that creative output would have grown differently had copyright expanded differently.

Re: Most Creative Time in History

There is never a need to dissuade the arts. If artists were a plague on society, no one would be willing to pay them for their work and they would not be able to support themselves. Rather, the abundance of artists shows the excess that this society can afford for their efforts.

Further, innovation is crucial in the scientific and engineering disciplines. Scientific reports and Software are both subject to copyright limitations, while other forms of engineering are subject to patent laws. These are the things that provide you with a temperate home all year round and light long into the night-time. Do you doubt their contribution to society as well?

Re: Re: Re:

"Everything is abused by some"

Well written legislation will resist abuse, but our current laws are intended to be abused because their very intent is abusive in nature.

When suggestions were made to help reduce potentail SOPA abuse, such as ensuring that alleged infringement claims were filed under penalty of perjury to increase the penalties of filing bogus takedown requests, IP extremists still refused. Why? Because they intend to abuse these laws, they intend for these laws to enable them to better abuse the legal system and they refused to settle for anything but one-sided laws, like always (ie: 95+ year copy protection lengths).

Re: Re: Re: Re:

There is a good way to reduce abuse, increase false infringement takedown penalties, but IP extremists refuse. They want potential infringement damages to be disproportionately higher than the damages for false infringement claims. Well written laws resist abuse and have the necessary safe harbors to do so (and penalties for those who try to abuse those laws) but our poorly written laws are meant to be abused, which is why they do so much to stifle competition (ie: by making it too legally risky and expensive for restaurants and other venues to host independent performers and even by making it too legally risky and expensive for bakeries to allow children to put custom drawings on their birthday cakes).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You do realize, of course, that these incredibly long copyright terms were "birthed" in France, which had well-know authors advocating for perpetual terms?

You do realize, of course, that France's "copyright" laws were largely based on droit d'auteur, or "moral rights?" That the rights artists wanted (and got) were essentially what is covered in CC-BY? That in most countries, they cannot be waived?

And that the economic rights granted to authors - even in countries with moral rights - are considered different? That in some countries, economic rights (sometimes called "material rights") are term-limited, but moral rights have no term limit whatsoever?

So: The U.S. lengthened copyright terms to match the lengths of foreign rights that the U.S. doesn't even recognize, and exist for completely different reasons.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Perhaps you should refresh your recollection. The original question was "It was my understanding that SOPA/PIPA would bypass safe harbors, is this incorrect?", and in response I stated that they would not. You did not ask for any substantiating data, only whether or not you were incorrect.

In response to the question you did not ask, see, generally, the references to Section 512 contained in both SOPA and PIPA. I could cite the specific sections, but I will proceed under the assumption you can do a word search of each. Take note of the "neither enlarge nor diminish" verbiage, along with the rest of the relevant clauses.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Moral rights, which have never been incorporated into US law, are in addition to the rights of exclusivity accorded under French law.

You are correct that moral rights are perpetual, but this is not true with respect to rights of exclusivity. The latter are term limited, though, obviously, most persons are not enamored with the length of the term.

Re:

But if it wasn't for copyright, think of all the works that COULD have been made if copyright didn't exist! I mean, it's just like the millions of dollars that could have been made if piracy didn't exist, right? Can't have it both ways shills and shills!

Re: Re: Yes, you will notice the trend in Hollywood towards "safe" remakes and such tends to match up nicely with the advent of the internet, and specifically the arrival of Napster.

Re: Re:

When I talk about the DMCA, I refer to the legislation that was actually enacted into law, and not versions that change continuously during the give and take of legislative negotiation.

I am pleased to note some gruding recognition by you that 512 and its safe harbors have shown themselves to be helpful.

As for the rest of the law, I am not at all sure why you are so convinced it is a "disaster". Is it anti-circumvantion that raises your ire? Why? It was incorporated to comply with the provisions of the WTO Copyright Treaty, provisions that were incorporated at the request of several nations, and not just the US. It was not incorporated on a whim, but resulted from extensive discussions among the negotiating countries.

The vessel hull provisions? Obviously, this was unrelated to the WCT, and arose as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Bonito v. Thundercraft. It is not a copyright issue, nor is it a patent issue. It is an unfair competition provision of extremely limited scope.

Something else?

Frankly, your constant resort to name calling makes me wonder if you are even willing to engage in a debate about issues over which reasonable minds can differ.

Re: Re: Re:

Well there are problems with the DMCA that people are trying to address.

Quote:

The Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act (DMCRA) restores the historical balance in copyright law and ensures the proper labeling of "copy-protected compact discs".

1) Restores the Historic Balance in U.S. Copyright Law

Reaffirms Fair Use. The DMCRA provides that it is not a violation of Section 1201 of Title 17 (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA) to circumvent a technological measure in connection with gaining access to or using a work if the circumvention does not result in an infringement of the copyright in the work. For example, under the bill a user may circumvent an access control on an electronic book he purchased for the purpose of reading it on a different electronic reader. However, if he were to upload the book onto the Internet for distribution to others, he would be liable for both a Section 1201 circumvention violation and for copyright infringement.

Reestablishes Betamax Standard. The DMCRA also would specify that it is not a violation of Section 1201 of the DMCA to manufacture, distribute, or make non-infringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling significant non-infringing use of a copyrighted work. By re-establishing the principle set forth in Sony v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), this provision is intended to ensure that consumers will have access to hardware and software products by which to engage in the activities authorized by the legislation. For example, a blind person could develop a means to listen in audio form to an electronic book which had been purchased in text form.

Restores Valid Scientific Research. The bill amends the DMCA to permit researchers to produce the software tools necessary to carry out "scientific research into technological protection measures." Current law allows circumvention for encryption research under specified circumstances. The bill will enable circumvention for research on technological measures other than encryption. The bill also permits a researcher to develop the tools necessary for such circumvention.

2) Ensures Proper Labeling of "Copy-Protected Compact Discs"

Major record companies have begun adding technology to CDs that would block people from making copies. In many cases the technology has also prevented playback on computers, DVD players, or even some standard CD players. It has become apparent that even the limited introduction of these discs into the United States market has caused consumer and increased burdens on retailers and manufacturers. Consumers are accustomed to the functionality of industry standard Compact Discs and should be aware of any reduced playability or recording functionality of non-standard "copy-protected compact discs" before they make the decision to purchase such items. For that reason, the bill directs the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that adequate labeling occurs for the benefit of consumers.

In its DMCA notice, the company involved charged infringement, claiming that the article “Tonga” on the English Wikipedia contained content copied from their publication. Our investigation showed that the content in question had been on Wikipedia for years before their work was published, having been taken from public domain publications by the US Department of State (with proper attribution at the time of the edit). The company publication apparently copied from the same source. They have withdrawn their takedown notice, with apologies. We have reported this erroneous report to http://www.chillingeffects.org/.

Re: What I find to be truly different in the last 15 years or so is that what passes as "new" these days is often nothing more than the old repackaged.

Re: Re: Re:

The WTO Copyright Treaty is the excuse.
No where in that treaty it says a country should pass enforcement laws that have no balance and without safeguards against abuse which is exactly what the DMCA did.

Re: Re: Re:

Where in that treaty says the US must pass laws that jeopardize free speech and commerce?

The DMCA has no safeguards to guard against abuse and it has been abused wildly all the while being ineffective.

In fact if we look at how things are going most of the DMCA is ignored by the public I have yet to see the government go after the population to enforce the rules of the DMCA specially those about the circumvention of DRM. People talk about that openly everywhere so where exactly is the "effective" legal tools?

Quote:

Article 11
Obligations concerning Technological Measures

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

I want to see any government in the world today pass a law that will criminalize people for showing others how to circumvent copy protections.

The laws are in the books, they just don't work to protect anything but are being used to harm competitors and censor others for that it is very much effective since the costs in time, finances and personal are great which excludes a large part of the population from having access to a court of law.

Want to see the abuse happening, it happens so frequently that everyday you can find a new DMCA takedown being processed that is either wrong or targeting a competitor company.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Correction:

Is should be called the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which regarding anti-circumvention measures provides in pertinent part:

Article 11
Obligations concerning Technological Measures

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

This is hardly an "excuse", unless by excuse you mean anything with which you happen to disagree.

I presume you use "abuse" in relation to the takedown procedure. Perhaps you should consider that the law also provides for counter-notices, and that in the event one is filed the burden then shifts to the takedown notice provider to either "put up or shut up". Yet, this is the one provision that even TD has acknowledged has been shown to be helpful to service providers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm a little surprised to see you dismiss the value of someones opinion on the basis of potentially being a "convicted felon" . Quite a few of us might be convicted felons if the copyright maximalists get their way.
Does being convicted according to an (at any given time or location) arbitrary set of rules mean we lose our ability to reason ? Our will to change unjust laws?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Perhaps you should consider that the law is not equal, a copyright holder can make any claim and not be held responsible for perjury, others under the penalty of perjury can use that procedure, that is such a great balance don't you think, the guy making the accusation has less liability than the guy being accused that is fantastic, besides not everyone informs people about the procedure there is not an obligation on any party to inform the guy being accused and he has to wait 10 days one a great balanced law that is.

Do the providers or accusing party inform the accused of his rights?
They don't even know that misuse of the DMCA can be punished.

So again why did congress passed such a law that lack safeguards against abuse and by lack I mean useful safeguards that are effective in barring abuse from happening not just service lip, because companies have legal departments people have what exactly?

That is right they have nothing, most people won't complain back because they can't afford to fight this nonsense.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

BTW, I am not a convicted felon (or charged/convicted of any crime), though I must admit I just paid a speeding ticket for exceeding the speed limit on a rural road by 4 MPH (don't you just love speed traps).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Another wrong DMCA issued against Wikipedia that instead of just taking down the content verified first and concluded it the company making the accusation copied the text in question from out of copyright material and was claiming copyright on it.

That is actually a crime, should Wikipedia notify the police about it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Another dumbass claiming erroneously copyrights on words and trying to block a webpage.

Is that how SOPA is supposed to work because unlike the DMCA SOPA didn't even had any safeguards at all against abuse of the process, there was no penalties for abusing it at least the DMCA had written that willful abuse would be punished by paying the legal bills of the other party and any other costs, which could only be proven if the dumbass claimant issued repeatedly DMCA's against the same thing, since wilfulness is hard to prove unless there is a series of acts that point to that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Innovation is bringing things to market were there was none, while in the US those things are in testing for 30 years in other places they are being realized and breaking neck speed at a fraction of the cost, that is innovation.

If you need some help here is the Thesaurus:

3. innovation - the act of starting something for the first time
innovation - the act of starting something for the first time; introducing something new; "she looked forward to her initiation as an adult"; "the foundation of a new scientific society"

Can you go to a remote location in the US and get a doctor online to help you or you will be getting an Indian doctor for 1/10 of the price?

Is there any P2PTV in the US at all that is supported and can find content easily with the breadth and length of the Chinese offerings?

When in history anybody could think about something, search for it in a couple of minutes and have it ordered from anywhere in the world in less the 10 min? That is global commerce on an scale you apparently can't grasp.

Re:

Re:

and there are so many great innovations coming out of the US these days too !!!!!!

oh wait !! sorry I was thinking of some other place!!

There have been some US innovations, like "sub-prime" loans, Gitmo, G W Bush, special renditions, sanctioned assasinations, the driver for a global recession, and a global depression

You've been able through your 'innovation' to turn the majority of the rest of the planet against you.

being caught in one of the biggest lies in history, and attacking the WRONG country based on those massive lies.

The US is in NO position to try to dictate morals or ethics to the rest of the world, or to believe it has some moral high groud to justify wanting to continue to take what is not your's to take.

This type of thing just confirms what the rest of the world allready knows about America... that you will lie, cheat and steal if you think it will get your anything... you all appear to be Burnie Maddoff's at heart..

Re: Re: Re:

@AC a-holes that asks for innovations... There are tons, but I'll make my line of work an example.

Can anyone say "Geoprocessing?"

Ever since Haiti and Japan, a whole bunch of places moved. When someone says "moved", it means it not in its original place.

So this now creates tons of inaccuracies in all the modern maps.

To cure this people involved in geoprocessing have recently made new applications for their respective companies, in a race to meet the demand for new maps.

This development won't be possible without MapWindows. An open-source application for the dev't of mapping and geoprocessing programs. They have been active eversince ESRI copyrighted ArcGIS, a powerful geoprocessing application.

Re: Re: Re: What I find to be truly different in the last 15 years or so is that what passes as "new" these days is often nothing more than the old repackaged. Hollywood does it ...

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Like things were any different before. No one starts with nothing."

...implying that all of the greatest artists in our history totally copied off a finished product instead of starting from scratch. Because Da Vinci totally ripped the Mona Lisa off of someone else. And Beethoven DEFINITELY did not compose his 9th symphony all by himself. Instead of slaving the day away at his piano, he totally copied and pasted off of past composers. Do you realize how retarded your comment sounds now?

Re: Re: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History

That's not the point though. In your example of a pilot episode of a show, it's still all YOUR original work. Yes, you need to keep working and adding to it to keep the fans coming back. But it's your story...I think what they are trying to say is that today, there's too much of adopt the story of show A, change a few little things around but the main story/characters stay the same, to make show B. THAT is bad, and in no way is it innovation. Innovation would be creating your own story from scratch, not literally copy and pasting from something else.

Slow Knowledge

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Notice how Da Vinci didn't need copy protection laws and yet, even according to you, without these laws more original works were created. but I was referring to the time period of

and I didn't say that all the greatest artists in our history completely copied those before them, but their works are derivatives of works before them. and most of what Hollywood puts out and has put out before the Internet has mostly been strongly derived off of what came before it because they are and were too afraid to put out anything original, just that which they believe makes profits and has a record of doing so.

and if you, a lawyer who contributes nothing, want to start with nothing and work up, do it yourself. Don't force others to do it. Or fund it yourself. Don't force others to fund it through the imposition of intrusive laws. Laws shouldn't revolve around your desire that others should start with nothing and work their way up, I'm perfectly happy with people making derivatives of the works of others and if you don't like it then don't do it yourself and fund your own desires yourself. But don't force your wishes on others.

Re: Re: Re: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History

"I think what they are trying to say is that today, there's too much of adopt the story of show A, change a few little things around but the main story/characters stay the same, to make show B."

That's no different than what the mainstream media has been doing for years. Pawn stars is a rip off of auction and other shows before it and then after that there is American pickers. Ghost hunters came out but I remember there being a ton of other shows like it that also came out that are basically the same thing (I can't remember the titles of them since I really don't watch that much T.V.). All these reality and game shows are spin offs of one another. Much of what is and was always on television is a spin off of other shows. Smallville is a spin off of superman and Lois and Clark and all these superheros and Thor are spin offs of ancient characters that were made a long time ago. What's your point? Pretty much everything on T.V. and which has been on T.V. for since television was invented has been a spin off of other stuff.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History

"But it's your story...I think what they are trying to say is that today, there's too much of adopt the story of show A, change a few little things around but the main story/characters stay the same, to make show B. THAT is bad"

Lets assume, for a moment, that this is true. I don't care. Just because you define everything to be an adoption of other works and you personally define that as a bad thing doesn't mean it's a bad thing. I don't think it's bad. Don't impose your arbitrary definition of "good" and "bad" on others through overarching laws. I'm perfectly happy with the way things would be without IP laws and if you don't like it then you are free to create or fund your own original works (oh, that's right, you're a lawyer, you don't contribute anything, you just complain about the contributions of others). But don't impose your laws on me just because you want the creation of what amounts to your arbitrary definition of original works. Make or fund it with your own efforts and through alteration of your own behavior, not through the imposition of laws that change the behavior of others.

Interdeminsional travel files suit against One-Dimensional Traversal

Characterized by the act of moving from one point in space to another, but without the natural occurrence of time change. The methods of Interdimensional Travel and One-Dimensional Travel vary greatly. Side effects include an occasional reduction in size, due to flaws in these ever-changing methods; a rare case of nausea; and some theories suggest longer life.

In Interdimensional Travel, the act of sleeping can be described as traversal through time, at varying speeds through-out the night. The evidence is shown in the dilation of time when we sleep. The act of dreaming is considered the climactic moment in this traversal, and it is at this very moment that we are able to travel through time at will. Research has dissected these theories and much success has been made in terms of actual travel mechanics. However, these theories are overly-complex, requiring unacceptable monetary costs in research -- not to mention many loose ends and being prone to errors, such as a reduction in mass.

One-Dimensional Traversal is much simpler, and provides proper handling of abstraction. Returning to the theories involving sleep, one method of One-Dimensional Traversal is the act of dreaming, although some theories claim that sleeping is in itself the actual vehicle of travel. Others disclaim the act of resting as anything but that, physical rest. One thing, however, does seem to remain consistent -- that dreaming can be motion without time.

The theories of One-Dimensional Traversal are the result of an aged Interdimensional Travel theory. For more information on these subjects, look to the stars and dream peacefully. The lights are in place for your pleasure and fascination. The reality is evident in motion, and the motion is evident in time. Sleep and dream of better tomorrows, and just maybe our dreams will always come true.
Now! *snap* Wake up. ^^ Feel any younger? No? Yes? Shorter?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"are you equating 'abuse' with 'breaking' the legislation ?"

No, that would be what IP extremists are doing. We are discussing abusing the law, not breaking the law. Abusing the law means the law is being used in a way that's socially detrimental. Laws should be socially beneficial.

"laws are written to stop abuse, ie to stop breaking doing that act which is now a law."

We're not discussing the breaking of the law, we are discussing the misuse of the law to stifle competition in ways that the law should not be permitted to do. and laws are not designed to stop acts which are now a law, they are designed to stop acts that are against the law. and while those acts maybe abusive, those acts may also be perfectly harmless. Laws are written for a variety of reasons, some of them political in nature (ie: 95+ year copy protection lengths) and some of them pragmatic (ie: speed limits, though sometimes even speed limits can have political motivations behind them, such as revenue generation from tickets).

Software royalties... That's the big thing now. Everyone wants their fair share. Pure greed. The cost of fast knowledge is a lesser society. It's going to be expensive to start up in programming. Software is akin to mathematics or cooking recipes. Do we want an unnatural monopoly on sandwiches? Meatball sandwich, patented. Margarita, entirely patented and very sexy. Cheap bars are done away with, but who cares right?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Notice how Da Vinci didn't need copy protection laws and yet, even according to you, without these laws more original works were created. but I was referring to the time period"

Of course he didn't need copy protection laws; the internet wasn't around to make it easier for people to say "screw you" to the artist. But now, people feel the need to not pay for their culture since it's "natural" to copy/share whatever they want...effectively breaking THEIR end of the agreement of copyright. I remember someone on an earlier article said copyright is an agreement between the public and the artist, to treat ideas/music/art/whatever like real property that can't be copied/shared for a time period to allow the person who made it to profit and make money for more creations; we the artist(s) are keeping our end of the deal. We still create culture for you guys. But for some reason you no longer feel the need to compensate us fairly for our work because you can just take it off the internet for free. Even though copyright HAS gotten a bit out of hand, (I honestly think it should only be 50 years and not life+50, and this is coming from a musician btw.) that doesn't give you a right to not compensate someone for their work if you consume it. It's not our fault the goons in charge of this country keep allowing themselves to be bought by the RIAA and whatnot...so punish THOSE people by not buying their products. Because it's certainly not like an army of indies are demanding these ridiculous copyright extensions.

"I'm perfectly happy with people making derivatives of the works of others"

Funny. Pretty much everyone on this blog bitches about the same retreaded crap hollywood puts out these days, yet someone contradicts that by being OK with more retreaded crap. The same stuff can only be done over and over before it gets boring...if you want a dull and bland culture in terms of art, music and the like, be my guest.

AC, I'm introverted, and I'm a college senior with a 2.8 gpa. I'm a writer.

But you're right. Slow Knowledge (public knowledge) is a purely natural occurrence, and we feel obligated to contribute. Patents are a farce. They're pretending the life of being critical to society's vital growth because, and I quote, "without patents nobody would want to create." Slow Knowledge trumps Fast Knowledge in an open market. If the courts aren't bought, then I see patents going out the window.

Re: Re: Re:

When I talk about the DMCA, I refer to the legislation that was actually enacted into law, and not versions that change continuously during the give and take of legislative negotiation.

Yeah, but you weren't talking about the legislation. You were talking about the complaints of people. And I highlighted how, as per usual, you were full of shit, because you conflated the complaints of people with the legislation itself. Which was wrong. But you know that and don't care, because you're full of shit, and always support any and all expansion of copyright, and speak in obnoxious pedantic language here as if only you could possibly understand the intricacies of copyright law.

But you're full of shit, and as I've explained to you, we've reached the point where it's time that people called you on it.

I am pleased to note some gruding recognition by you that 512 and its safe harbors have shown themselves to be helpful.

Not grudging recognition. Once again, you are full of shit. We've always said that the safe harbors are important.

Why pretend otherwise? Other than that you are full of shit.

As for the rest of the law, I am not at all sure why you are so convinced it is a "disaster". Is it anti-circumvantion that raises your ire? Why? It was incorporated to comply with the provisions of the WTO Copyright Treaty, provisions that were incorporated at the request of several nations, and not just the US. It was not incorporated on a whim, but resulted from extensive discussions among the negotiating countries.

SO because a bunch of countries agreed on a really really bad idea that has caused tremendous harm, we should all be okay with it?

See? Full of shit.

Frankly, your constant resort to name calling makes me wonder if you are even willing to engage in a debate about issues over which reasonable minds can differ.

Bullshit. Let's face it: you've been on this site for a long time. In the past, I've tried to engage with you on lots of issues, but you're totally full of shit. Completely and utterly full of shit. You make vague assertions about how much you know and how little everyone else knows. You come off as a pedantic obnoxious asshole. You insult everyone around here for not being as smart as you -- and yet any time anyone calls you on your bullshit you clam up.

Because you're full of shit.

We noticed this with SOPA. You started going after people claiming they obviously hadn't read the bill, and when we proved you full of shit and asked you to make a direct statement to back up your points, you refused.

And that's the point when I recognized that the only thing left to do was to call you out for being completely full of shit.

I was happy to engage in debate with you, but you have shown yourself to be either incapable or unable to engage in any real debate, other than being full of shit. So, at that point, the only proper response is to call it as we see it and let you know that you are totally and completely full of shit.

Re: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History

I love this article and I couldn't agree more. This is definitely one of the most creative and unique times in history. The Internet has revolutionised and changed the world so much. There has never been so much information openly availble to anyone with a computer and Internet connection. I hope the Internet continues to grow and flourish, and that bills such as SOPA never get passed. What a shame to destroy this amazing resource that we now have. It needs to be protected and enjoyed by everyone.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Have you even examined the terms of the Berne Treaty? I ask this because your comment does not square with the document.

It is useful to note that though Berne was signed in the late 1800's, the US did not acceede to it until enactment of the US Copyright Act of 1976, and even then many of the formalities under US law remained in force until about the mid-1990's.

Please stop with the gratuitous insults. Civility should be the order of the day, even when you may happen to disagree with what someone else has expressed.

As a matter of historical interest, history records that the earliest known patent was issued circa 500 B.C. within Sybarius (a part of what is now southern Italy) for recipies of particular renown. Its term of exclusivity was for a period of one year.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your fascination with "bovine excrement" makes me wonder if perhaps you grew up on a dairy farm.

Turning to the subject at hand, for the past several months you have been been fixated on various bills before Congress and trade agreements in which the US is a negotiating party. During that time you have made numerous declarative statements comprising "legal analysis", not only concerning the bills and agreements, but also various terms of law and judicial decisions regarding same. Merely by way of example, and not limitation, you proclaim the lack of "due process", and yet when it is pointed out that your use of the term is not in accord with judicial decisions spanning almost two centuries, your all too typical response is to brush them aside, as if the judiciary is incapable of explaining the constitutional meaning of the term. You proclaim that the First Amendment has essentially been trampled by the courts, once again brushing aside detailed explanations from various sources why your opinion misses the mark. You opine in the strongest of terms that our courts simply ignore the provisions of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 by not paying heed to what you call "The Progress". Once again, judicial analysis and express holdings are cast aside with proclamations that the courts are plainly wrong.

You then use your dubious legal analysis to try and raise a moral panic among those who are obviously unfamiliar with the details of the bills and agreements, and then lend your support and encouragement for them to parrot to Congress and the Executive that these bills and agreements trample upon constitutional strictures. Other than snide comments concerning one opinion expressing a view of the First Amendment that does not fit neatly within your view, you make no attempt whatsoever to objectively present legal analyses by others who disagree with you and your sources. Apparently, your sources are definitive, and everyone else is a "shill", "maximalist", "lobbyist for the industries that rely in part upon copyright law", "place financial self-interest above all else", etc., etc.

You say you are happy to engage in debate. Frankly, your modus operandi to date has been to berate anyone who dares to disagree, an attitude that belies what you say you are more than willing to do.

If you truly mean it when you say you are more than willing to debate, then it behooves you to listen to what others may be saying, and then engage them in a civil discussion.

I well recognize that I may once more be lambasted with comments peppered throught with salty language, none of which do anything to fairly consider and educate your readers concerning issues over which reasonable minds may disagree. I urge you to reject this impulse since it serves no useful purpose.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Of course he didn't need copy protection laws; the internet wasn't around to make it easier for people to say "screw you" to the artist."

Nonsense, copy protection laws existed before the Internet was as popular as it is now. You are making an unfalsifiable claim, a claim that can't be tested (since we can't test how the internet would have impacted his works) and that is likely because your claim is false. Claims that are unfalsifiable are generally false.

"But now, people feel the need to not pay for their culture since it's "natural" to copy/share whatever they want"

People copied historical documents galore in the past before the Internet, with the printing press, and even before that (the Bible and the Koran). Yet that never seemed to stop works from appearing. You're just making things up again.

"effectively breaking THEIR end of the agreement of copyright."

I never agreed to anything so how am I breaking my end of an agreement I never agreed to? Again, there you go again, making things up.

"I remember someone on an earlier article said copyright is an agreement between the public and the artist, to treat ideas/music/art/whatever like real property that can't be copied/shared for a time period to allow the person who made it to profit and make money for more creations"

It can be thought of as an agreement, sure, but that agreement got broken as soon as the laws became one sided (ie: through retroactive copy protection extensions). When the government-industrial complex breaks its end of the agreement, why shouldn't others break theirs? Copy protection can be thought of as an agreement, but for it to be so the public has to accept the terms. I as a member of the public do not accept our current terms and demand that our elected officials change or abolish them.

You're just a lawyer, you create nothing useful. and everyone participates in the creation and alteration of culture, I don't want you to limit how others can create and modify culture just so that you will participate. If you don't want to participate, then don't, but don't force your arbitrary rules on others. I don't agree to them and I never have.

"But for some reason you no longer feel the need to compensate us fairly for our work because you can just take it off the internet for free."

It's not the governments job to ensure that everything is 'fair', this isn't communism. Again, the purpose of IP should not be to ensure that IP holders are 'fairly compensated', no one is entitled to compensation, it should be to serve the public interest. and if the public doesn't want these laws then I say we abolish them. If you feel that means you, as a non-contributing lawyer, can't get 'compensated' for the works of others then find another job and see if I care. Others will create culture without you, stop pretending like we need you because no one does.

"that doesn't give you a right to not compensate someone for their work if you consume it."

I don't care if you spend a million dollars digging a hole at the beach, I have a right to step over it and not compensate you. My right to not compensate IP holders for works that IP holders hold privileges to doesn't only come from the fact that IP holders have broken their end of the social agreement (through retroactive extensions), it also comes from the fact that no one is entitled to a government sanctioned monopoly in the first place and my right to copy as I please exists outside of government. Laws are to serve a public interest, compensating the authors is merely the means, and if they don't serve a public interest then they should be abolished.

"It's not our fault the goons in charge of this country keep allowing themselves to be bought by the RIAA and whatnot...so punish THOSE people by not buying their products."

I don't buy their products, and I don't 'pirate' them, but that shouldn't stop me from opposing bad laws.

"Pretty much everyone on this blog bitches about the same retreaded crap hollywood puts out these days"

Mostly in response to people who complain that the Internet is nothing but derivatives. The argument isn't that there is something wrong with Hollywood putting out nothing but derivatives, the argument is that if you want to complain about the Internet being nothing but derivatives then why not complain about Hollywood being nothing but derivatives even before the Internet while copy protection laws still did exist. But please continue to miss the point.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm not insulting anything but the argument.

The Berne Convention gave authors:

- right to control adaptations, or the preparation of "derivative works" ( 17 U.S.C. § 106.)

- right to claim authorship
- right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
- right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
- right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation
- right to prevent the destruction of a work of art if it is of "recognized stature

- the right to govern false and misleading advertising, and can apply in some instances to attribution of protected works

Basically, an author can shut down a derivative work to control the moral integrity of their own. So your own argument is based on the idea that moral rights aren't in copyright. Well, they are.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I did not say that moral rights are not embraced by copyright, but only that it is one aspect of Berne (Article 6bis) that has never been adopted within US law, with the singular exception being 17 USC 106A pertaining to works of visual art...and even then this exception is tepid at best, very narrow in scope, and subject to waiver.

If you continue reading the subsequent articles in the Berne text, you will find they are directed to a large assortment of exclusive, substantive rights that mirror many, but not all, of the exclusive rights accorded authors or their assigns under Title 17 to the United States Code.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I never agreed to grant no one a monopoly for life + 95 years.

Also before the internet was the tapes that would destroy the world, before that was wax, before that was paper and printing.

And so you know everybody who wanted to disregard copyright was able to and continue to be able to do so, and I hope the numbers grow, because this whole copyright thing is just nonsense, a fantasy that some are trying to grab on to that never worked and never will work.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You are making an unfalsifiable claim, a claim that can't be tested (since we can't test how the internet would have impacted his works)"

So basically, you are saying that if the internet was around in his day which allowed people to take his work without paying for it, people still would have invested in him? I don't know about you, but when someone can get something for free they no longer have any reason to buy it.

"People copied historical documents galore in the past before the Internet, with the printing press"

So you are comparing AUTHORIZED copying to UNAUTHORIZED copying. Seems legit.

"It can be thought of as an agreement, sure, but that agreement got broken as soon as the laws became one sided"

And how is that the fault of EVERY artist in the world? It isn't. Blame the government that allows themselves to be bought. Or blame the moronic companies that do the buying out. Don't blame some random artist by feeling you are entitled to just consume their work without paying for it.

"Again, the purpose of IP should not be to ensure that IP holders are 'fairly compensated"

Someone failed U.S history...the point of copyright was to allow artists and other innovators to have a time period to profit, so they could make money for future creations. The point of copyright was also to eventually put those works back into the public domain, but I guess you can thank our gov't and random companies for that.

And really? I'm not a lawyer...lol. I never knew being of the opinion that people have a right to be paid for their work made you a "non-contributing" lawyer. Thanks for the laugh though!

"I don't care if you spend a million dollars digging a hole at the beach, I have a right to step over it and not compensate you."

Yes you do; because in that example, you are not using any of my work. But if you decided that you were going to build something of your own on my land, then you most certainly would need to pay since you are then using someone else's work. Again, if you are gonna use analogies...USE CORRECT ONES.

"it also comes from the fact that no one is entitled to a government sanctioned monopoly in the first place and my right to copy as I please exists outside of government"

And comments like this are exactly why artists need to ensure their work is protected. People like you would never pay for consuming things or credit work used in a derivative if you didn't have to.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You certainly seem to think that you're the final word on art, so maybe I could press you to, you know, define "art?" No one's been able to define it for centuries, but I guess you've cracked the code?

People here seem to be playing semantics; switching "derivative" and "inspired by" at their whim. Of course all stories/songs/paintings are derivative in the colloquial sense, as in inspired by something else. But they are not derivative in the legal sense. Writing my own song about a rock group made up of intergalactic space assassins might be inspired by Soul Music or Pirate C.O.R.P.$., but it would not be a derivative as recognized by courts, provided I don't specifically take any of the distinct expressions from those books (and even then... I could get away with quite a lot; parody a name here or there, a little nudge nudge wink wink with a description of a character, etc)

Since a lot of people are so adamant about legal definitions of theft and infringement, I'm surprised that they're not sticklers for the legal definition of a derivative work covered here. [wikipedia.org]

People are also playing fast and loose with the term "remix," which I assume stems from Lessig's hijacking of the term to further his ultimately ill-fated agenda. Star Wars isn't a remix of old western/fantasy/samurai films, for instance. Hell, The Empire Strikes Back isn't even a remix of A New Hope. A remix is by definition legally derivative, because they are made of distinct mechanical reproductions of the original work. I'm not trying to split hairs here, "remixed by" is an actual album credit and it means something fairly specific.

There are plenty examples of remix video work on Youtube, super-edits spring to mind, but just because something is inspired by something else (what isn't?) doesn't make it a remix. Even if it contains mechanical reproductions within it, it doesn't necessarily become a remix. DJ Shadow's work is highly derivative and full of samples, but most of it is not remixes (although he does those, too). Most hip hop songs are made of samples, but few of them would be considered remixes. Does anyone consider "Ice Ice Baby" to be a remix of "Another One Bites the Dust"?

Likewise, just because something is derivative doesn't mean it's uninspired.

Just saying that everything is derivative doesn't help the conversation. It's like proclaiming that everything is art. Well, that means "art," as a concept, has no meaning. It's like how there is said to be an "art" to pitching a baseball, but is pitching really art? Does being able to make it to the pros make you an artist? I'm not saying I can define the term, but then I don't make proclamations to the effect that I know what art is.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ah, still full of shit. You claim I said stuff, but fail to quote a single example. Put up or admit (again) that you're full of shit. I'll take you on any day, because you're so easy to defeat. You never bring the goods. Ever.

You then use your dubious legal analysis to try and raise a moral panic among those who are obviously unfamiliar with the details of the bills and agreements

I do no such thing. You're the one raising moral panics, claiming repeatedly that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know what they're talking about, or is morally deficient. You are the one who has repeatedly raised questions about the moral standing of people around here.

I just point out the obvious: that you are full of shit.

But I have never tried to raise a moral panic. I point out the facts -- which I back up completely. If you disagree with me, you'd actually back shit up. But you never do. You merely cast aspersions and talk down to everyone. You talk about how people have no read the bill, but when we dig into language, you suddenly disappear.

Why? Because you're full of shit.

You say you are happy to engage in debate. Frankly, your modus operandi to date has been to berate anyone who dares to disagree, an attitude that belies what you say you are more than willing to do.

Not true. I'm happy to debate anyone and do so without berating people all the time. However, you've been on the site for years, and I used to try to debate with you before I realized that you were full of shit and would never debate honestly. I put up with it, and continued to debate with you for years. But now that I realize it's pointless, because you're full of shit and will never, ever, bring the goods.

If you truly mean it when you say you are more than willing to debate, then it behooves you to listen to what others may be saying, and then engage them in a civil discussion.

Fuck off. I listened to you for years, and you never, ever, brought anything legit to the table. You cast aspersions on everyone else with vague insults insisting people didn't know what they were talking about and only you, the wise master of all things IP law, could possibly comprehend the details. But when people called you on it, you refused to ever provide a SINGLE fact to back it up.

Trust me, I listen to all sorts of people who disagree with me. But, honestly, after having you on this site for years and seeing your MO, there's no engaging with you civilly, because you're completely and totally full of shit.

I well recognize that I may once more be lambasted with comments peppered throught with salty language, none of which do anything to fairly consider and educate your readers concerning issues over which reasonable minds may disagree. I urge you to reject this impulse since it serves no useful purpose.

Again, you are the only person I do this to, because of your history on the site. There's nothing to "fairly consider" here, because you're full of shit.

Don't like it? Tough shit. Bring something to the table, back up your points, sign your name. Or fuck off. I really don't give a flying fuck what you think of my language. Until you bring something to the table, I'm going on your years on this site of being a total asshole, who won't back up a single point when called on it. There's no use "listening" or engaging with someone who is full of shit. At some point, you just have to call them on it.

Again, I don't respond to any other person this way. Congrats, you've earned it by being totally and completely full of shit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

someone can get something for free they no longer have any reason to buy it.

Not true it can diminish the reasons to buy, but it doesn't exclude all possibilities.

You can go download CentOS is a copy of Red Hat Enterprise without the name, but it is fully operational and do everything the original does why people buy the Red Hat Enterprise?

Arduino is an opensource electronic board, everybody can copy it, modify it and still Arduino is making millions, can you explain that?

Obviously software engineers(i.e. kids who didn't go to school and instead learned how to program) and electronic engineers are more intelligence than a musician...oh wait that is not true we all are blessed with a brain inside our skulls and it works the same for everyone, gosh artists can make money too and they don't need copyrights(i.e. monopolies) to do it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Don't blame some random artist by feeling you are entitled to just consume their work without paying for it.

After of course you drop the monopolistic tendencies, than we can talk, if people want to distribute something they should be able too.

Musicians should not be protected by exclusion laws and principal reason why is that exclusion tools under the law are an excuse for abuse by governments and monopolies never ever worked for the greater good.

If you are a musician you got the market there if you can't make people pay you, that is not their problem is yours, not anybody's fault.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes you do; because in that example, you are not using any of my work. But if you decided that you were going to build something of your own on my land, then you most certainly would need to pay since you are then using someone else's work. Again, if you are gonna use analogies...USE CORRECT ONES.

Except you alone don't own the public space where your supposed property resides.

Once it leaves your hands is not your work anymore.
Just like sounds that come out of your mouth are not to be considered property and you can't force others to cover their ears so you can speak your words in public and not have them listened illegally.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Whew...

If any of this was true I wouldn't like myself either or pay any attention to what I said. Fortunately, I know better.

I do find it somewhat of a consolation that others who practice and/or teach law and post comments that question what is asserted here with some regularity receive much the same treatment (sans, of course, the vulgarity).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Arduino is an opensource electronic board, everybody can copy it, modify it and still Arduino is making millions, can you explain that?"

Umm...maybe because you still have to buy the physical boards? LOL. As for your other examples, I can't really comment on those since I'm not too familiar with Linux.

"gosh artists can make money too and they don't need copyrights(i.e. monopolies) to do it"

If people can get the core product for free right from release day, (which will happen since someone will eventually feel entitled to upload it) they have no reason to buy it. Copyright was made so creators could have a certain amount of time to profit without having to compete with free copies, so that money could be made for future creations. Now obviously that deal came with the promise to the public that after the time was up the work would be public domain, but I guess you can blame the RIAA and the like buying out the government for that one. Don't even know why they did it tbh...30-50 years is plenty of time to profit. If someone seriously needs life+120 years (yes, that's the copyright for a work for hire! LOL.) to profit, they need to go jump off the Grand Canyon.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"After of course you drop the monopolistic tendencies, than we can talk, if people want to distribute something they should be able too."

You can distribute your OWN work, or the work of someone else that ALLOWS you to do so all you want. But if someone is trying to sell a product, you can't just turn around and offer it for free. You'll drive away all their business. Here's a fun example.

If you ran a grocery store and I decided to "distribute" free groceries outside your store, according to your logic it is 100% ok to do that since I should have the right to distribute whatever I want, wherever I want. And clearly you aren't running your business right since your customers decide not to go in your store after getting what they wanted for free. In this case, you too would have the market there; so apparently you suck for not making your customers buy your stuff instead of taking the free product that is the same exact thing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If people would follow the damn honor rule, by giving credit for derivative works and actually pay for what they consume, we wouldn't need copyright. But because people feel the need to do the opposite of both, those people who created the original work need to protect their work. There is no reason why you can't credit original works if you make a derivative, and there definitely isn't a good reason to NOT pay for consuming things that are for sale.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you ran a grocery store and I decided to "distribute" free groceries outside your store, according to your logic it is 100% ok to do that since I should have the right to distribute whatever I want, wherever I want.

If you came up with a better business model which involved distributing free groceries outside that other grocery store, then yes, that would be 100% ok. It's called competition.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Guess the store better start putting ads on everything to make some money. Oh, and some t-shirts/mugs/other scarcities and connecting with their fans would probably be great too. Clearly since their core product is free they need to sell scarcities. AND DON'T FORGET THE LIVE PERFORMANCES! They could totally hire a famous chef to juggle the food as they're cooking it while the employees are dancing at the same time. WHEEEE!!!!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

*ahem* Now that I've had my troll fun, it's not competition. It's some entitled person deciding they are allowed to drive business away from a store. Competition would be store B giving a better deal/price/whatever than store A. But having the convenience of getting what you want for free RIGHT AT THE DOOR? I know this whole thing is theoretical of course, but a store can't compete if they can't even get people behind their damn doors.

Re: wrong

It always starts with copying, but then people go on to put their own spin, and then unique brand of creation. The key is, because of the ability to share work, more people are bothering to make it. If it's difficult to share your work, why bother making it?

Re: wrong

It always starts with copying, but then people go on to put their own spin, and then unique brand of creation. The key is, because of the ability to share work, more people are bothering to make it. If it's difficult to share your work, why bother making it?